A NEW HERESY?
By Dr. Jeffray Greene
What is happening to Christ’s beloved bride, the church? Say one thing, but do another is a prevailing reality in our denomination. The next five issues of FOCL Point are going to be directed in a very specific way to enable you to understand how the devil has gotten hold of our church and is seeking to choke the very life out of her. There will be a very directed purpose in what we report to you that you may better understand the issues at stake.
After the Ascension, Christ left the ministry of the church to His disciples. Over the ages, there have been recurring heresies that have been introduced to get the elect, if it were possible, to deny the one true faith. In session one (page seven) of the ELCA’s sexuality study, two of the old heresies are reintroduced right off the bat. In defiance of the Augsburg Confession, article VI (3), where we are asked to explore what it means to be in a new obedience granted through grace by faith, the study declares that grace justifies us without exploring need for repentance, amendment, or reconciliation to God’s perfect Word. In days passed, this was called the heresy of antinomianism, which is a word built on Greek that literally means "anti" – "law" – "ism." We are then introduced to experience as a norm for faith. "Regardless of our . . . orientations, or views . . . our unity comes from Christ and his gifts of forgiveness." The list of views then build a case that defies the reality of original sin, Article II of the Augsburg Confession – that we are born in a fallen state. This heresy is called Pelagianism, so named for the ancient teacher, Pelagius, who taught that all people were born ‘good’ and not in a fallen state.
Orwellian double-speak has become so common-place that it is hard to discern the truth through all the pablum we hear. I propose that perhaps we are seeing the emergence of yet another great heresy which shall be remembered in years to come.
Several years ago, discussing the struggle in store for the ELCA with a bishop, the editor said he believed that the issue at hand would be in determining what we meant in the ELCA’s statement of faith where it says that Scripture was the "source and norm of faith and life."
Currently, in the ELCA, no one will argue against calling Scripture the source of faith and life. The modifier used, however, greatly changes what this second part of our equation means. If Scripture is [a] source, then things, such as the ‘experience’ cited in the sexuality study become another credible source. If Scripture is [the] source, then all declarations need to be made in light of what Scripture clearly states, and we know that Scripture has very strong language against non-monogamous non-heterosexual practice. Determining which idea of ‘source’ we’re going to use as a church is not enough to get us out of the perpetual trouble we are currently experiencing. We must deal with the second part of the equation as well.
What do we mean when we say ‘norm’? If, by using the word ‘norm,’ we mean that we build upon history, then it allows for us to find ‘new’ understandings based on our collective experience. The existential understanding of humanity’s ever increasing wisdom and knowledge allows for an expanded ‘norm’ to set the standard by which we measure all things. If, however, by ‘norm,’ we mean that there is an absolute and already existing standard by which we measure all things, the outcome will be entirely different. The measurement, then, is based on what has already been declared.
In the current theological battle, there are yet a couple more elements we need to have before a clearer picture can be seen. There are a couple of words used by the church in the past, chosen after great deliberation, that are no longer acceptable in mainstream discussion, yet speak to the prevailing problem.
With the onset of the sophistry of existentialism and rationalism, the church declared Scripture to be infallible. What this word meant was that God’s Word would prevail and not ‘fail’ (as the Greek conjugation implies). In other words, "you can always trust Scripture to tell the truth and God’s promises will come to pass." With increased empiricism and the acceptance of the theory of evolution as fact, the church once again painstakingly argued through the Minneapolis and Chicago thesis on the one hand and the Washington, Savannah and Baltimore declarations in the early part of the twentieth century to come to a conclusion of declaring Scripture as having preeminence in all matters of faith and life, i.e., as the ‘norm’ by which to measure all things. In one arm of our predecessor bodies, the word ‘inerrent’ was used to describe this understanding.
The best description of the quandary is summed up in understanding what we mean when we say we use Scripture to describe who we are and why we do what we do. Either the Bible is a book about God, or it is a book from God. It is either God’s Word in God’s words, or it is the telling of many stories gathered in ages past that provides a jump off point to understanding the creation and the Creator. It cannot be both.
Personally, I find it illogical to think that God is so existential or distant that He wouldn’t be particular about what is being said about Him, or attributed to Him. The church of the past would agree with that assessment. The church orthodox had struggles, but it did not argue over Scripture’s ability to be declarative and absolute. In light of heresies past, I have dubbed the current milieu of theological meandering the antilogian heresy. Literally, "against," or anti "word." When Jesus was tempted by the devil a third time through the perversion of Scripture, Jesus told the devil that he should not put the Lord to the test. Ultimately, when the forces of darkness seek to pervert Scripture, the answer for everyone who believes that Scripture is [the] source and norm of faith must do the same.
These are interesting days for the church. That we are in the midst of a tremendous controversy is to minimize the difficulties we face. While the authority of Scripture is defiantly ignored and a ‘new’ understanding of human behavior is upheld as acceptable in God’s eyes, we will see more of the kinds of stories that are reported in this issue of FOCL Point. Until we get back to accepting God’s Word, as written, as God’s choice of what He wanted revealed to be used in all matters of faith and life, we will see an escalation of turmoil and trouble. Join in the prayer of FOCL’s Board President that we get out of the way and let the church be the church.
Wolfhart Pannenberg on HomosexualityIn this essay Pannenberg takes a stand on the issue of homosexual behaviour from the perspective of biblical truth about human sexuality. Perhaps his voice will give courage to others to speak the truth about love-in love.
When mainline denominations debate whether to ordain practicing homosexuals or to sanction same-sex marriages, one wonders: where are the persons of Christian stature and theological wisdom who will stand up for the biblical truth about human sexuality? In Germany there is such a person: Wolfhart Pannenberg, eminent professor of theology at the University of Munich . His critique of liberation theology and his defence of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ have been widely influential.
Can love ever be sinful? The entire tradition of Christian doctrine teaches that there is such a thing as inverted, perverted love. Human beings are created for love, as creatures of the God who is Love. And yet that divine appointment is corrupted whenever people turn away from God or love other things more than God.
Jesus said, "Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me" (Matt. 10:37 , NRSV). Love for God must take precedence over love for our parents, even though love for parents is commanded by the fourth commandment.
The will of God - Jesus' proclamation of God's lordship over our lives - must be the guiding star of our identity and self-determination. What this means for sexual behaviour can be seen in Jesus' teaching about divorce. In order to answer the Pharisees' question about the admissibility of divorce, Jesus refers to the creation of human beings. Here he sees God expressing his purpose for his creatures: Creation confirms that God has created human beings as male and female. Thus, a man leaves his father and mother to be united with his wife, and the two become one flesh.
Jesus concludes from this that the unbreakable permanence of fellowship between husband and wife is the Creator's will for human beings. The indissoluble fellowship of marriage, therefore, is the goal of our creation as sexual beings (Mark 10:2-9). Since on this principle the Bible is not time bound, Jesus' word is the foundation and the criterion for all Christian pronouncements on sexuality, not just marriage in particular, but our entire creaturely identities as sexual beings. According to Jesus' teaching, human sexuality as male and as female is intended for the indissoluble fellowship of marriage. This standard informs Christian teaching about the entire domain of sexual behaviour.
Jesus' perspective, by and large, corresponds to Jewish tradition, even though his stress on the indissolubility of marriage goes beyond the provision for divorce within Jewish law (Deut. 24:1). It was a shared Jewish conviction that men and women in their sexual identity are intended for the community of marriage. This also accounts for the Old Testament assessment of sexual behaviours that depart from this norm, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual relations.
The biblical assessments of homosexual practice are unambiguous in their rejection, and all its statements on this subject agree without exception. The Holiness Code of Leviticus incontrovertibly affirms, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Lev. 18:22 ). Leviticus 20 includes homosexual behaviour among the crimes meriting capital punishment (Lev. 20:13 ; it is significant that the same applies to adultery in v. 10). On these matters, Judaism always knew itself to be distinct from other nations. This same distinctiveness continued to determine the New Testament statements about homosexuality, in contrast to Hellenistic culture that took no offence at homosexual relations. In Romans, Paul included homosexual behaviour among the consequences of turning away from God ( 1:27 ) . In I Corinthians, homosexual practice belongs with fornication, adultery, idolatry, greed, drunkenness, theft, and robbery as behaviours that preclude participation in the kingdom of God (6:9f.); Paul affirms that through baptism Christians have become free from their entanglement in all these practices (6:11).
The New Testament contains not a single passage that might indicate a more positive assessment of homosexual activity to counterbalance these Pauline statements. Thus, the entire biblical witness includes practicing homosexuality without exception among the kinds of behaviour that give particularly striking expression to humanity's turning away from God. This exegetical result places very narrow boundaries around the view of homosexuality in any church that is under the authority of Scripture.
What is more, the biblical statements on this subject merely represent the negative corollary to the Bible's positive views on the creational purpose of men and women in their sexuality. These texts that are negative toward homosexual behaviour are not merely dealing with marginal opinions that could be neglected without detriment to the Christian message as a whole.
Moreover, the biblical statements about homosexuality cannot be relativized as the expressions of a cultural situation that today is simply outdated. The biblical witnesses from the outset deliberately opposed the assumptions of their cultural environment in the name of faith in the God of Israel, who in Creation appointed men and women for a particular identity.
Contemporary advocates for a change in the church's view of homosexuality commonly point out that the biblical statements were unaware of important modern anthropological evidence. This is new evidence, it is said, suggests that homosexuality must be regarded as a given constituent of the psychosomatic identity of homosexual persons, entirely prior to any corresponding sexual expression. (For the sake of clarity, it is better to speak here of a homophile inclination as distinct from homosexual practice.) Such phenomena occur not only in people who are homosexually active. But inclination need not dictate practice. It is characteristic of human beings that our sexual impulses are not confined to a separate realm of behaviour; they permeate our behaviour in every area of life. This, of course, includes relationships with persons of the same sex. However, precisely because erotic motives are involved in all aspects of human behaviour, we are faced with the task of integrating them into the whole of our life and conduct.
The mere existence of homophile inclinations does not automatically lead to homosexual practice. Rather these inclinations can be integrated into a life in which they are subordinated to the relationship with the opposite sex where, in fact, the subject of sexual activity should not be the all-determining centre of human life and vocation. As the sociologist Helmut Schelsky has rightly pointed out, one of the primary achievements of marriage as an institution is its enrolment of human sexuality in the service of ulterior tasks and goals.
The reality of homophile inclinations, therefore, need not be denied and must not be condemned. The question, however, is how to handle such inclinations within the human task of responsibly directing our behaviour. This is the real problem: and it is here that we must deal with the conclusion that homosexual activity is a departure from the norm for sexual behaviour that has been given to men and women as creatures of God. For the church this is the case not only for homosexual but also for any sexual activity that does not intend the goal of marriage between man and wife - in particular, adultery.
The church has to live with the fact that, in this area of life as in others, departures from the norm are not exceptional but rather common and widespread. The church must encounter all those concerned with tolerance and understanding but also call them to repentance. It cannot surrender the distinction between the norm and behaviour that departs from that norm.
Here lies the boundary of a Christian church that allows itself to be bound by the authority of Scripture. Those who urge the church to change the norm of its teaching on this matter must know that they are promoting schism. If a church were to let itself be pushed to the point where it ceased to treat homosexual activity as a departure from the biblical norm, and recognized homosexual unions as a personal partnership of love equivalent to marriage, such a church would stand no longer on biblical ground but against the unequivocal witness of Scripture. A church that took this step would cease to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.
Translated by Markus Bockmuehl for publication in the Church Times; Copyright Wolfhart Pannenberg.
Mediation ordered in civil suit
The following is based on excerpts of a story by Sandra Cason in the Marshall, Texas News Messenger.
The civil case is related to a criminal trial in which a Harrison County jury took only minutes in February of 2003 to find Gerald Thomas guilty on 11 counts of sex crimes against children, and then to give him the maximum sentence of 397 years in prison.
The 14 victims, all minors, and their parents have now filed a civil suit not against Thomas, but against the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Trinity Lutheran Seminary, from which Thomas was graduated, and the Northern Texas/Northern Louisiana Synod, which includes Marshall.
"This case has been on file since 2002," Judge Bonnie Leggat told the group of attorneys gathered in the courtroom. "I'm ordering you to mediate this one more time before we pick a jury on Monday." Saying she fully trusted the wisdom of Harrison County jurors, the judge reminded the lawyers that "it's a roll of the dice with juries," regarding the amount of monetary awards.
The judge also told the lawyers that 500 potential jurors have been summoned for the case, which is expected to take between two to four weeks to try. The judge denied the defendants' request to submit a questionnaire to prospective jurors. "It is intrusive and abusive and it doesn't save time," she said. She did say jurors would be allowed to see a list of witnesses. "They can read them to see if they know any of them."
Other than the children, their parents, local law enforcement officers and some representatives of the Lutheran church here, the judge noted witnesses would be from out of town.
The issues addressed for summary judgement represented "14 minor plaintiffs and their parents" who have filed civil action against the ELCA, the seminary, the area synod "and certain individuals for their wrongful and reckless conduct in approving, recommending and ordaining Gerald Patrick Thomas as an ELCA pastor when they knew, or should have known, Thomas posed a risk of harm to children." The document stated further that the "defendants have each filed no-evidence motions attacking virtually every element of every cause of action asserted by plaintiffs."
Charlene Draper contributed to this story.
©© 2004 Cox Newspapers, Inc. - The Marshall News Messenger
Editor’s Note:
A settlement was reached out of court. The amount of the settlement was not disclosed, although the original lawsuit was seeking $300 million. By the time of this report, the figure had been downsized to a still substantial $67 million. The question remains, how much will the ELCA have to pay in the years to come through increased insurance premiums. How much did the ELCA have to pay to settle this case?
Reprinted from the Forum Letter April 2004
by Russell E. Saltzman, editor, Forum Letter
Copyright 2004 by American Lutheran Publicity Bureau
This is very serious, very messy and potentially very, very costly to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). We are speaking of the lawsuit against Trinity Lutheran Seminary, Columbus, OH and the ELCA. We have mentioned it before (FL:33:1).
The suit was instigated by the families of the teenage boys who fell victim to sexual molestation by Gerald Patrick Thomas. Thomas is the 1997 Trinity graduate who, at the time of his arrest, was serving an ELCA congregation in Marshall, TX. His 2002 conviction on multiple counts of sexual abuse resulted in a prison sentence of 397 years, reputed to be the most severe penalty ever meted out in such a case by any criminal court. The only comparable sentence we have heard about is 270 years given to a Catholic priest. The lawsuit is seeking more than $300 million from the ELCA and will be heard before Judge Bonnie Leggat in her Harrison County, TX district courtroom —— the same judge, incidentally, who presided over Thomas’’ criminal trial.
Were you to visit <http://www.co.harrison.tx.us/> and click under the district court’’s jury docket schedule, you will find John Alfred Doe, et al vs. Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, et al scheduled for April 5, provided no settlement is reached in the meanwhile. We know that negotiations were held early February. We know, too, that the plaintiffs are confident, very confident, of going to trial.
Given the materials related to the case that we have in hand, we can understand why.
Depositions and memos
Forum Letter is in possession of the deposition of James M. Childs, one of the defendants named in the suit. At the time Thomas was a seminarian, Childs was Trinity’’s academic dean and is now director of the ELCA’’s sexuality task force. We also have several other depositions given by ELCA officials during discovery, including that of ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark S. Hanson, made in Chicago at the Lutheran Center last September 22. Additionally, we have copies of numerous internal seminary memos related to Thomas’’ internship and behavior while a student at the seminary, and we have memos from Bp. Kevin Kanouse, bishop of the ELCA Northern Texas/Northern Louisiana Synod related to the arrest of Gerald Thomas. Bp. Kanouse within days of Thomas’’ arrest specifically alerted a seminary official to a possible lawsuit.
From these items we now know that at least some Trinity officials were well aware of Thomas’’ problematic behavior with adolescent boys, and they were aware of it prior to his certification for call. They knew that while on his internship Thomas provided alcohol to adolescent boys in his apartment and allowed them to watch a same-sex male pornographic video. There was police involvement at the time, but no charges were filed.
Question in dispute
This incident did not end his internship, which concluded in the normal fashion. He returned to Trinity Seminary for his final year. The incident did merit an ""incident report"" by his internship supervisor, Pr. Melvin Swoyer, which is also in our possession. Seminary officials never shared the report with Thomas’’ synodical candidacy committee, though at least one memo speculates about the impact such a report might have upon a candidacy committee.
Further, seminary officials knew that a pastor in charge of an after-school youth program in Columbus, OH, where Thomas worked during his senior year, had also raised concerns about Thomas over the manner of his involvement with male youth in the program.
To be clear, the seminary faculty did not specifically vote to approve Thomas’’ candidacy. Instead, of three recommendations available to the seminary —— approve, deny, postpone —— the faculty took no action. None of the appropriate blanks were checked. In effect, the faculty rendered a ""no comment"" on the fitness of his candidacy for certification. We do not know what questions, if any, the candidacy committee may have raised given Trinity’’s lack of recommendation.
The issues around Thomas’’ behavior on internship and with the after-school program were addressed with Thomas.
How thoroughly and how seriously the seminary addressed those questions is the subject in litigation.
He was urged to seek therapy because of his unstable ""boundaries"" with teenage male youth. He never did, nor did anyone at the seminary insist. Moreover, they claim they could not. In the depositions we have seen, all plead a lack of authority to compel or require any student to seek therapy. That is probably so, absent a threat of dismissal. But there was not, in the seminary’’s opinion, reason to make therapy an absolute requirement before certification. Thomas’’ inaction in seeking therapy did raise concern with at least one seminary official, but by that time Thomas was certified with a call in hand to Marshall, TX.
Casting a wide net
Among those named as ELCA defendants from Trinity Seminary are: Brad Binau (who conducted several sessions with Thomas post-internship), Allan Sager (internship director), Dennis A. Anderson (seminary president at the time), Leland Elhard (then on faculty, now retired), Don Luck (faculty), Mark Ramseth (current president). Defendants from the Northern Texas/Northern Louisiana ELCA Synod include: Mark Herbener (synod bishop when Thomas was called to Marshall, TX), Kevin Kanouse (Herbener’’s successor and bishop at the time of Thomas’’ arrest), Earl Eliason (an assistant to Herbener, of whom more in a moment). Named as ELCA defendants are: H. George Anderson (presiding bishop during that period) and Mark S. Hanson (the present presiding bishop).
The plaintiffs, of course, cast as wide a net as possible hoping to haul in a big catch. Our opinion, the only names of merit in the lawsuit are the synodical and seminary officials.
Disingenuous discipline
Nonetheless, the deposition of Bp. Hanson reveals the plaintiff’’s interest, keen interest, in ascertaining just exactly how rigorously ELCA disciplinary policies on sexual misconduct are actually enforced. Any pattern of non-enforcement common throughout the ELCA arguably strengthens the plaintiff’’s case for negligence regarding Thomas.
In this respect, Hanson is asked about his period of service as a synod bishop. He is questioned, ""When you were synod bishop, did you have a lesbian minister in your synod?"" Hanson: ""I literally would have to take time to think through who was in the synod."" Next, ""Did you have a lesbian minister in the synod while you were bishop that was engaged in a committed sexual relationship with another lesbian and would not take a vow of celibacy?"" Hanson: ""I was never given allegations of that kind of behavior about one of the rostered persons in my synod by anyone.""
This may seem more than a little disingenuous. It is not, as some might suspect, a reference to the illicitly ordained Anita Hill who was never on the synod roster. Instead it refers to another pastor presently on the clergy roster of the St. Paul MN Area Synod.
Zipper troubles
What is evident is that some synod bishops construe an absence of formal allegations —— never mind how well-known the problem may be —— to mean it does not exist and therefore does not merit intervention by a church authority. The crisis of the Roman Catholic scandal, we point out, isn’’t just that some pastors acted badly, but that so many bishops failed in their responsibilities to enforce policies in existence.
The similar factor here – which admittedly is an oversimplification – is the "old church" culture that would not directly confront rumored heterosexual misconduct, in the hope it could be dealt with "pastorally" among "old boys" in a "friendly" and "paternal" way. That often amounted to nothing more than allowing the pastor to receive another call. The egregious problem of pastors with multiple incidents of "zipper trouble" is one the ELCA has been forced to face. Meanwhile, though, since the ELCA does not know what to teach about homosexuality, the "paternal," "pastoral" approach, disgraced as a way of dealing with heterosexual predator offenses, seems to be alive and well when the context is homosexuality. In short, the once "tolerated" list of ""acceptable" kinds of sexual misconduct has been replaced by another one.
Little distinction
Questions surrounding disciplinary enforcement grew much sharper as the plaintiff’’s attorney raised in one deposition the instance of former Bp. Mark Herbener’’s assistant, Earl Eliason. Eliason installed Thomas at Marshall, TX in June 1997. Just four months earlier, Eliason had pled guilty to misdemeanor charges of lewd behavior with several men in a public restroom. No public action was taken by the synod bishop; what private action may have been taken is unknown. Eliason remained on Herbener’’s staff until Herbener’’s term expired. He took retirement shortly afterward and then resigned from the ELCA clergy roster in early June 2002, four months after the Marshall, TX lawsuit was filed.
It must be said the plaintiff’’s attorney makes little distinction between gay men attracted to teenage boys and gay men content with more age-appropriate partners. Yet the suggestion here is that in cases involving homosexual men and women, ELCA discipline amounts to a wink and a nod whatever risks exist, even when the risk is posed to adolescents and children.
When standards for pastors said to be devised in part to limit potential liability arising from misconduct are not enforced, a liability insurer conceivably is let off the hook. The insurance against liability is good only so long as the disciplinary policy, upon which the guarantee is based, is in fact put into effect.
This is what Trinity Seminary officials are accused of doing —— winking, nodding, going along, failing to enforce church policy.
Is that what happened?
As we said earlier, and we wish to stress it again, the issues around Thomas’’ behavior as an intern and as a student were addressed. At litigation is, were they adequately addressed? Testimony from the seminary officials involved asserts that the answer is clearly yes. As best they could view things at the time, there was not enough evidence to warrant Thomas’’ dismissal.
But this isn’’t to say a Texas civil court jury will not view matters differently.
Defiant Lutheran Congregations
From an AP story.
The Rev. Jennifer Mason was installed on April 18, followed by Rev. Daniel Hooper at Hollywood Lutheran on May 2. Both are actively involved in same sex relationships. The move defies the ELCA’s rule against active homosexuals serving in the ordained ministry.
A press release from the Office of the Bishop declared that these installations were not consistent with the current policies of the ELCA. "According to the denominations constitutional guidelines, in ELCA ministries, only individuals on the ELCA roster are eligible for call and installation as ministers of Word and Sacrament." According to the press release, Jennifer Mason was an ELCA pastor from 1991 to 2001. When it became known that she was living in a relationship with another woman, she resigned her call and from the clergy roster of the ELCA. "The denomination expects pastors to refrain from sexual relationships outside of marriage.
Mission and the ELCA
Dr. Herb Schaefer
Dr. Schaefer, due to poor health, stepped down as FOCL’s president. We offer these words from his last report to the board.
Despite the many pronouncements of our various bishops and especially our presiding bishop, Mark Hansen, that the ELCA is committed to mission, the printed reports show a different picture.
On the home front we know that before the merger that formed the ELCA, the ALC alone planned to establish fifty new congregations each year. Now, after the merger, twelve congregations were received last year, although seven withdrew, sixteen were merged or consolidated and thirty-four were disbanded for a net loss of thirty-five congregations.
The picture is even more bleak on the foreign mission front. By the year 2000, the ELCA was down to two hundred and forty-nine foreign missionaries, counting wives, using Globel Mission figures. Compare this with over one thousand missionaries, not counting wives, employed by the ALC alone at the time of the merger. We are now twice the size with one tenth the number of missionaries. The numbers are even more bleak when you realize who is actually financing the missionaries. A large portion of the Global Mission budget is used to fund the bureaucracy at home. There are currently one hundred and forty-nine missionaries, and forty-eight staffers at ELCA headquarters. Several of the one hundred and forty-nine in the field are financed in their entirety through non-ELCA mission dollars.
There is currently a proposed six percent cut on the table for Global Mission, or approximately ninety-six thousand dollars. All this in a church of five and a half million who’s leaders declare that the ELCA is a missional church. These figures make the ELCA’s boast that it places God’s mission first a lie.
What is the answer? What is needed is for the ELCA to stop all the agreements and special studies, such as the Sexuality Study and let the church be the church for a change. Then we would see the handiwork of the Lord.
SUPPORT THE VISION FOR MISSION OFFERING
From an April, 2004 ELCA note to pastors.
This has been a challenging year financially for this church, but we remain committed to being a vital, vibrant church in mission. We remain committed to being Christ's church in mission together. The Vision for Mission offering is a marvelous opportunity to infuse the church with support so that our shared ministries can continue to be strong and those to whom commitments have been made need not be disappointed.